SC issues split verdict on Christian man's plea for his father's burial in native village, directs swift burial in nearby village - World News Network

New Delhi [India], January 27 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Monday issued a split verdict on a case involving the burial rights of a Christian man seeking to bury his father in their native village in Chhattisgarh’s Bastar.
Although the two-judge bench of Justices BV Nagarathana and Satish Chandra Sharma, could not reach a consensus, it issued directions for the immediate burial of the deceased in an alternative village located 20-25 kilometres away from the family’s resident village.
The Court permitted the deceased’s family (the appellants) to be allowed to conduct the funeral in Karkapal village, where a designated burial ground for the Christian community is located.
Additionally, the top court directed the State authorities and the police to provide logistical assistance in transporting the body from the mortuary in Jagdalpur to the concerned village for the funeral.
Furthermore, the Court has ordered that the deceased’s family be provided police protection while carrying out the funeral, noting that the case has the potential for religious tension in the concerned region.
The Court noted that its decision was based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.
Interestingly, despite the disagreement, the Division Bench chose not to refer the matter to a third judge, a course of action typically followed in such cases. This decision was made keeping in view the urgency for a quick burial of the deceased person’s body which has been lying in a morgue since January 7.
The dispute arose when the village panchayat denied the Christian man permission to bury his deceased father in the family’s resident village. This prompted the man to approach the Chhattisgarh High Court.
The village panchayat and State authorities had contended that the burial ground available in the concerned village is only designated for persons belonging to the Hindu Tribal communities and not for Christians.
It was stated that the family could carry out the burial in another village located 20-25 kilometres away, where a Christian burial ground exists.
The High Court upheld this argument, ruling that the burial could only take place in the alternative village, citing concerns about potential disharmony if the burial occurred in the family’s native village.
The Supreme Court in its verdict, could not agree on a unanimous solution on the issue.
Justice Nagarathana, in her judgement, opined that the deceased should be buried on the family’s private agricultural land, despite the village authorities objecting to it.
She further said that denying the Christian family to bury the deceased member in their native village is discriminatory and violates Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India.
Additionally, Justice Nagarathana also directed the State to allocate burial grounds for Christians in all states within two months.
On the other hand, Justice Sharma disagreed with Justice Nagarathana’s views.
He opined that the religious rights under Article 25 were subject to public order and should not extend to claims on burial grounds designated for other faiths or religions.
Justice Sharma therefore upheld the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision in having denied the Christian family the right to bury their deceased member’s body in their native village.
The top court judge said that the deceased’s body shall instead be buried in the appropriate burial ground available in another village (Karakapal) 20-25 kilometres from the concerned native village (Chhindawada).
Additionally, Justice Sharma also said that support must be provided by the state authorities for the burial to be carried out in the appropriate burial ground in Karkapal.
As the bench could not reach a unanimous conclusion, it ultimately directed that the deceased’s body be buried in Karkapal in light of the unique circumstances of the case.
In the last hearing, the Court had reserved its verdict after hearing both parties in the matter. Senior Advocate Colin Gonzalves appeared for the appellant Ramesh Baghel. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta represented the State of Chhattisgarh. (ANI)

Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed of ANI; only the image & headline may have been reworked by News Services Division of World News Network Inc Ltd and Palghar News and Pune News and World News